JohnsonJones

Conference October 3-4, 2020

Recommended Posts

Just a thought.  I hadn't seen a thread on it, but just around the corner (in a little over a week) is General Conference (Oct 3-4) starting at 10 AM MST.

Events - October 2020 General Conference

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints invites everyone to participate in the 190th Semiannual General Conference October 3-4, 2020. Through the use of technology, more viewing and listening options will be available than ever before, ensuring the largest global general conference audience to date.

As the world grapples with a global pandemic, economic hardship, social issues, political turmoil, and uncertainty, The First Presidency, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and other General Authorities and General Officers of the Church will focus on the Savior’s messages of love, understanding, acceptance, hope, connection, and inclusion. 

Of the conference, the First Presidency said, “We will focus on Him by elevating our use of the name He revealed for His restored Church. We will recognize major events of the ongoing Restoration to celebrate our history and future. We will become even more “converted unto the Lord” and invite all to come and find enduring joy on His covenant path.” 

 

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Just a thought.  I hadn't seen a thread on it, but just around the corner (in a little over a week) is General Conference (Oct 3-4) starting at 10 AM MST.

Events - October 2020 General Conference

 

Personally, I am very much edified by "elevating our use of the name He revealed for His restored Church..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Personally, I am very much edified by "elevating our use of the name He revealed for His restored Church..."

I use to think I got the importance of using the Church's real name but Pres Nelson seems to be emphasizing it more than the importance I have been ascribing to it so now it's got me wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 10:04 AM, CV75 said:

Personally, I am very much edified by "elevating our use of the name He revealed for His restored Church..."

How is elevating one's use of the name of the church done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a noun, I understand the desire for the full name, rather than the common slang form--especially since the latter is so often used by opponents. However, when it comes to the adjective, will I still be respectful if I use "LDS?" :idea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

As a noun, I understand the desire for the full name, rather than the common slang form--especially since the latter is so often used by opponents. However, when it comes to the adjective, will I still be respectful if I use "LDS?" :idea:

It is respectful, however there is a push specifically to get away from just "LDS" because Christ is so important and should be in there.  

Personally, I'm fond the "LDS Christian" - after all, I'm a disciple of Christ and Christian is the noun there.  The "LDS" part showing specificity therein.  I could technically say "member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" every single time but admittedly that's a mouthful.  So if it's somebody new I'm talking with I'll use the full thing once and then switch to shorter "LDS Christian".  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking more along the lines of "LDS culture" or "LDS event" vs. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints culture/event. Then again, I could just say, "Oh, you know...it's a Thirdhour.org thing." I'm sure most will get my meaning. :sparklygrin:

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

As a noun, I understand the desire for the full name, rather than the common slang form--especially since the latter is so often used by opponents. However, when it comes to the adjective, will I still be respectful if I use "LDS?" :idea:

I consider the adjectival usage of "LDS" as respectful (per se, that is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

As a noun, I understand the desire for the full name, rather than the common slang form--especially since the latter is so often used by opponents. However, when it comes to the adjective, will I still be respectful if I use "LDS?" :idea:

Although the name of our church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, members are still Latter Day Saints.

I see no problem with using it as an adjective in this context.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vort said:

I consider the adjectival usage of "LDS" as respectful (per se, that is).

I realize that people can say respectful, disrespectful, or downright awful things using "LDS" as an adjective. But the abbreviation "LDS" itself is, in my estimation, not disrespectful. It seems the best alternative in many situations.

"LDS history", for example, seems a decent term to use, in fact one with no good alternative. "The history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", in addition to being long and potentially cumbersome, has a much narrower meaning than "LDS history", which might concern issues well outside the confines of the history of the Restored Church. The infamous and too-often-cited Mountain Meadows Massacre, for example, is quite obviously LDS history; but realistically, it is not properly a part of the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, any more than Mitt Romney's political ambitions, Steve Young's football career, or the rantings one reads on a ThirdHour forum are a part of the history of the Restored Church. (These events are tangentially related to the Restored Church, but to call them a part of Church history is to overbroaden the term until it becomes meaningless. By that estimate, the history of the United States of America is itself a part of the history of the Restored Church, as is the history of Rust Belt auto manufacturing, the history of defensive missile silos, the history of broadcast telecommunications, the history of soda pop, the history of ranch management and production, and so on ad nauseam.)

So what are we to call such history if not "LDS history"? The only other appropriate term would be "Mormon history", which most Latter-day Saints would agree is inferior to "LDS history" in both precision and term usage. This is what I mean when I say that using "LDS" as an adjective in such cases is respectful per se.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an interesting turn of events regarding the name of the Church, and I expect that we will be edified by listening to the Prophet and General Authorities.

Of interest, and Russell M. Nelson and other General Authorities probably should know this (as several of them are older than I am), one reason the word Mormon, or a shortened form of LDS was used in the past were for several reasons.  First, saying the full name of the Church can be a mouthful, and secondly, over-usage of it, especially in inappropriate times, can be seen as taking the Lord's name in vain by using it repetitiously. 

I've seen many things in regards to the first reason of why we should use the full name of the Church, but thus far have not seen anything regarding the second reason why it was not used as much previously.  It would be nice if they address that issue as well, though perhaps people do not have as much of a problem with repetitious usage of the Lord's name today and that is a cultural change.

Of other importance I hope the talks on inclusion and acceptance, love, and hope can help us during this time of uncertainty regarding uprisings and ailments that are afflicting the world.  As Saints, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us, but guidance from our Leaders should not be underestimated in how powerful it can be, especially during these troubling times.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Bolding for emphasis what I really want people to read out of my post, rather than what they may be more inclined to read and respond to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vort said:

I realize that people can say respectful, disrespectful, or downright awful things using "LDS" as an adjective. But the abbreviation "LDS" itself is, in my estimation, not disrespectful. It seems the best alternative in many situations.

"LDS history", for example, seems a decent term to use, in fact one with no good alternative. "The history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", in addition to being long and potentially cumbersome, has a much narrower meaning than "LDS history", which might concern issues well outside the confines of the history of the Restored Church. The infamous and too-often-cited Mountain Meadows Massacre, for example, is quite obviously LDS history; but realistically, it is not properly a part of the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, any more than Mitt Romney's political ambitions, Steve Young's football career, or the rantings one reads on a ThirdHour forum are a part of the history of the Restored Church. (These events are tangentially related to the Restored Church, but to call them a part of Church history is to overbroaden the term until it becomes meaningless. By that estimate, the history of the United States of America is itself a part of the history of the Restored Church, as is the history of Rust Belt auto manufacturing, the history of defensive missile silos, the history of broadcast telecommunications, the history of soda pop, the history of ranch management and production, and so on ad nauseam.)

So what are we to call such history if not "LDS history"? The only other appropriate term would be "Mormon history", which most Latter-day Saints would agree is inferior to "LDS history" in both precision and term usage. This is what I mean when I say that using "LDS" as an adjective in such cases is respectful per se.

Well, History of the Church or Church History suits me fine.  It was a moniker that has been used in descriptions of Church history previously, though today we are using the Word Saints (which I suppose could imply History of the Saints) which could also work I suppose.

For secular usage I suppose LDS History could work for an abbreviation, though technically the History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be more accurate.

If one wants to cover history that is not technically part of the Church's history, Mormon History works fine as a descriptor, as it is not specifically about the Church, but about a movement and a group that collectively are known as Mormons.  Much like Catholics or Protestants are lumped together, and a history about Protestants would be more enveloping about the movement and splinter groups within it, a History about the Mormon movement is not about our Church, but about the entire culture, evolution, and all the various groups under that umbrella in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is an interesting turn of events regarding the name of the Church, and I expect that we will be edified by listening to the Prophet and General Authorities.

As far as I can tell "The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints" has always been written on every chapel, temple, and church document. Its a marketing and media problem that the church is trying to correct. In the 2000's the church put out a heavy marketing campaign called "...and I am a Mormon!" further adding to the popularity of the name, it was a huge success.

Apparently in 2020 the Lord is now offended??  "..And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended." 
https://thirdhour.org/blog/faith/correct-name-of-the-church/
 

I personally do not see any problem with how the Church and its members have represented Jesus's Church in my lifetime.

1. 3rd Nephi 27:8 - Jesus says if it is my church then call it by my name, which we have been doing.

2. 3rd Nephi 14:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. - In the 1990's there were two famous mormon Americans living in Japan, one was a TV personality the other a lawyer. As a missionary in Japan in 1999 many doors were opened to us because we were mormon just like those two famous people. As "christian" missionaries people were not interested in talking to us.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

As far as I can tell "The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints" has always been written on every chapel, temple, and church document. Its a marketing and media problem that the church is trying to correct.

I have never seen this before, but if you say so.
ERM-2013-08-ladder-safety-230x300.jpg.ddb6b78b9346f3a319ce9b1524a98e31.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, priesthoodpower said:

Apparently in 2020 the Lord is now offended??  "..And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended." 
https://thirdhour.org/blog/faith/correct-name-of-the-church/

It’s a good thing we believe in prophets and continuing revelation, other wise we may never have known.

I would also add that it is amazing that the church has grown so much that we can start focusing on such little things like how we refer to the church.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2020 at 8:22 PM, prisonchaplain said:

As a noun, I understand the desire for the full name, rather than the common slang form--especially since the latter is so often used by opponents. However, when it comes to the adjective, will I still be respectful if I use "LDS?" :idea:

Of course.  I still use it when I need to save time and space.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

As far as I can tell "The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints" has always been written on every chapel, temple, and church document. Its a marketing and media problem that the church is trying to correct. In the 2000's the church put out a heavy marketing campaign called "...and I am a Mormon!" further adding to the popularity of the name, it was a huge success.

Apparently in 2020 the Lord is now offended??  "..And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended." 
https://thirdhour.org/blog/faith/correct-name-of-the-church/
 

I personally do not see any problem with how the Church and its members have represented Jesus's Church in my lifetime.

1. 3rd Nephi 27:8 - Jesus says if it is my church then call it by my name, which we have been doing.

2. 3rd Nephi 14:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. - In the 1990's there were two famous mormon Americans living in Japan, one was a TV personality the other a lawyer. As a missionary in Japan in 1999 many doors were opened to us because we were mormon just like those two famous people. As "christian" missionaries people were not interested in talking to us.

 

 

 

Well I'm offended that you can't even use the correct name yourself.  It's Latter not Ladder.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I've always found the Church's name dashing.

Spoken like a true citizen of Haifa Nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2020 at 9:49 PM, Jane_Doe said:

It is respectful, however there is a push specifically to get away from just "LDS" because Christ is so important and should be in there.  

Personally, I'm fond the "LDS Christian" - after all, I'm a disciple of Christ and Christian is the noun there.  The "LDS" part showing specificity therein.  I could technically say "member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" every single time but admittedly that's a mouthful.  So if it's somebody new I'm talking with I'll use the full thing once and then switch to shorter "LDS Christian".  

 

I have heard some use Latter-day Saint as it strikes a balance between LDS and the longer name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2020 at 7:22 PM, prisonchaplain said:

As a noun, I understand the desire for the full name, rather than the common slang form--especially since the latter is so often used by opponents. However, when it comes to the adjective, will I still be respectful if I use "LDS?" :idea:

The primary reason we have been asked not to refer to the Church as the LDS Church is because the sacred name of Jesus Christ has been removed - which is the center, primary authority and focus of the church.  It is also my understanding that names do matter - especially when the L-rd himself has designated what a name should be.  I understand and believe that we live in an extraordinary and important time within the framework of what G-d plans for the destiny for mankind.  This time is designated as the "Last Days" or the Latter-day.   Finally, because G-d's church as the authority to cleanse and change fallen man by covenant - those that draw unto G-d to covenant with him through "His" authorized servants are called Saints.

Sometimes we refer to this as the "Full Name" - but as you can see, it is much more than just a name.  The name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is the fulfillment of divine prophesy and a testament to the world that G-d is a true and living G-d, fulfilling "All" his covenant promises and providing a clearly marked path for all that seek Him.

I would add that a reference to the covenant members of the Church as LDS or Latter-day Saints is proper - especially when it is understood that it refers to a divine covenant.  So asking a question like '"Are you LDS" or "are you a Latter-day Saint" is both proper grammar and indicative of sacred covenant.   So I consider any reference to me as LDS or a Latter-day Saint - to be of great respect and one I am not sure I am completely worthy.  But though we may think in terms of "Church" and a name of a religion - it is not my place to tell other how to deal with sacred things.  That is between them and what-ever it is that they worship.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now